Russia-Ukrainian War

[changegonnacome]

29 minutes ago, UK said:

Ukraine was encouraged to walk away from it.

 

I think the reporting appear pretty solid on this from reputable sources - that a tentative deal was being put together in Turkey......lots of water from Turkey to a workable peace however so this woulda coulda sliding doors moments are rife with 'what ifs'.....however it appears that Boris Johnson chiefly with no doubt implicit/explicit US backing encouraged Zelensky to walk away......the hubristic math was that Ukraine's counteroffensive would be so wildly successful with the West's help that a better deal lay out in the future for Ukraine.

 

They (Uk/US) were probably right about that to be fair........but the West/Ukraine missed the moment of peak negotiating strength which was earlier this year when Kharkiv & Kherson were recaptured.......alas that was many many months ago now......and who needs a deal more now is much less clear.

[UK]

19 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I think the reporting appear pretty solid on this from reputable sources - that a tentative deal was being put together in Turkey......lots of water from Turkey to a workable peace however so this woulda coulda sliding doors moments are rife with 'what ifs'.....however it appears that Boris Johnson chiefly with no doubt implicit/explicit US backing encouraged Zelensky to walk away......the hubristic math was that Ukraine's counteroffensive would be so wildly successful with the West's help that a better deal lay out in the future for Ukraine.

 

They (Uk/US) were probably right about that to be fair........but the West/Ukraine missed the moment of peak negotiating strength which was earlier this year when Kharkiv & Kherson were recaptured.......alas that was many many months ago now......and who needs a deal more now is much less clear.

 

On the other hand isn't it always the case, that those with momentum on their side are not keen to negotiate or they demand too much? And btw Ukraine did regained a lot of territory after that. The question is now what? Maybe everything settles into some Korean situation, but will this be so stable and sustainable?

 

On the other hand, it appears far right, with Orban like ideollogy, just won elections perhaps in the most (former) open country in Europe...it is still hard to be very optimistic and sure about the future, at least in this part of the world. But hey, at least that German brigade is coming soon:)))

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by UK

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, UK said:

On the other hand isn't it always the case, that those with momentum on their side are not keen to negotiate or they demand too much? And btw Ukraine did regained a lot of territory after that. The question is now what? Maybe everything settles into some Korean situation, but will this be so stable and sustainable?

 

Momentum is important if your the weaker opponent as Ukraine is....time is not your friend when the country your figting has 5x the population, 5x the GDP & 5x industrial capacity...Ukraine surprised Russia with the speed and ease with which they took back Kharkiv & Kherson.......Russia's army appeared at this point to be at its weakest......I think looking back in the future THIS might be considered the point of strongest negotiating ability where Russia may have surrendered more land than Ukraine currently occupies.

 

Russia now will IMO sit & defacto permanently annex the land it currently occupies.......the conflict will be partially frozen here via some cease fire.....but Russia in occupying 20-25% of Ukraine's official land mass has created a strategic situation where Ukraine will not be a member of NATO ever.....for if Ukraine joins NATO.....NATO is immediately at war directly with Russia under the security guarantees.....which the West has no interest in.

Edited November 23, 2023 by changegonnacome

[John Hjorth]

The foes in this fight - both of them - are at the moment fighting! -  at their repectively very best! -  to keep up momentum! - against their common and shared enemy : mud!

 

Not much ticket selling in that for MSM, where the Israel-Hamas situation in Gaza just has more - much more - traction.

[formthirteen]

Weak leaders in Europe and US. I guess we will see WW3 soon.

 

 

[Xerxes]

On 11/23/2023 at 3:45 PM, changegonnacome said:

Russia now will IMO sit & defacto permanently annex the land it currently occupies.......the conflict will be partially frozen here via some cease fire

Russia has already de jure annexed those territories. There is no such thing as de facto annex, when they already de jure annexed. 
 

what you are trying to say is that it has de facto control on most of it. And enough control to make life miserable in the parts that it doesn’t control but are formally annexed. 

[Spekulatius]

BILD is not a credible source, they just make stuff up and have been doing this for 50 years at least.

 

Right now General Winter is going to slow everything down. Russia may have 4 x the soldiers,  but they are also losing 4x the soldier right now, probably about 200k casualties/ year. Sure they can keep it up for a couple of years but their economy and demographic damage borders on ruin.

 

Next year, they have to combat a Ukrainian Air Force bolstered by F16’s. Ammo won’t be an issue then either, there is enough production online by then to keep up with consumption.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Spekulatius

[Xerxes]

 

[formthirteen]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

BILD is not a credible source, they just make stuff up and have been doing this for 50 years at least.

 

Yes, this is just BILD's opinion at this point. Scared leaders is a fact though: https://ip-quarterly.com/en/whos-afraid-ukraines-victory

 

Quote

Exaggerated fear of escalation meant too much attention being paid to the Kremlin’s supposed “red lines”: from sending any military aid at all to Ukraine, to sending heavy weapons and now, seemingly, Ukraine retaking all of its territory and thus “winning.” Yet crossing these red lines has seen no escalation—because NATO has effective deterrence against Russia. Rather it has been when the allies have self-deterred, succumbing to the Kremlin’s attempts at reflexive control, that we have created the space into which the Putin regime has aggressively moved.

 

Quote

 

Most pertinently, if the US proceeds with its bloc formation against China and other autocracies, it will expect its allies to effectively choose sides and take commensurate actions, including on military contribution, trade, and international ordering. Failing to account for this possibility risks leaving Germany exposed and again having to endure changes wrought on it by others rather than taking strategic ownership of and shaping those changes in advance.

This dangerous view of the future, therefore, not only draws questionable lessons from history but also manifests itself in cautious hedging that fails to learn from the Zeitenwende. It would be far better for Scholz to commit unequivocally to a Ukrainian victory and to playing a fuller part in delivering the triumph of democracies over autocracies that would better serve Germany’s values as well as its interests.

 

 

 

[changegonnacome]

I was chatting over Thanksgiving with a friend in the foreign relations community and he flipped some US foreign comms links from 2008 that came out via wikileaks that might make interesting reading to those interested. I hadnt read them before.

 

• "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES"

 

- https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

 

• "RUSSIAN OPPOSITION TO UKRAINIAN NATO MAP UNCHANGED"-

 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW147_a.html

 

• "RUSSIA "LOSES" BUCHAREST"

 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW1090_a.html

 

 

Finally he suggested I pick up this book from the US Ambassador to Russia from the late 2000's- William J Burns 

The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal released in 2019-

https://www.amazon.com/Back-Channel-American-Diplomacy-Renewal/dp/0525508864

 

In the book apparently is a message Burns sent to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008 which I think helps put in context the reason why Russia is not throwing in the towel in Ukraine any time soon even if Putin mysteriously died or was overthrown. Ukrainian non-nato membership & its place in Russia’s national security architecture is dogma in the Russian foreign policy establishment. Putin maybe change but that principal won’t.

 

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” -

William J. Burn's ,US Ambassador to Russia cable to Condoleeza Rice

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by changegonnacome

[John Hjorth]

As if the country isen't already being tested. Imagine being in a trench under these weather conditions [, Russian or Ukrainian ... - doesn't matter].

 

 

[cubsfan]

On 11/25/2023 at 10:40 AM, changegonnacome said:

I was chatting over Thanksgiving with a friend in the foreign relations community and he flipped some US foreign comms links from 2008 that came out via wikileaks that might make interesting reading to those interested. I hadnt read them before.

 

• "NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES"

 

- https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

 

• "RUSSIAN OPPOSITION TO UKRAINIAN NATO MAP UNCHANGED"-

 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW147_a.html

 

• "RUSSIA "LOSES" BUCHAREST"

 

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW1090_a.html

 

 

Finally he suggested I pick up this book from the US Ambassador to Russia from the late 2000's- William J Burns 

The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal released in 2019-

https://www.amazon.com/Back-Channel-American-Diplomacy-Renewal/dp/0525508864

 

In the book apparently is a message Burns sent to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008 which I think helps put in context the reason why Russia is not throwing in the towel in Ukraine any time soon even if Putin mysteriously died or was overthrown. Ukrainian non-nato membership & its place in Russia’s national security architecture is dogma in the Russian foreign policy establishment. Putin maybe change but that principal won’t.

 

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” -

William J. Burn's ,US Ambassador to Russia cable to Condoleeza Rice

 

 

It may be a redline for Putin, but he sure is paying dearly now. He probably got the message that anymore shenanigans with other European nations will be even more costly. 
 

It’s unfortunate that events had to go this far for Russia’s neighbors to wake up. Better late than never, but much more costly.

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, cubsfan said:

It may be a redline for Putin, but he sure is paying dearly now.

 

The most important lesson of these internals comms make for anyone looking at the situation and thinking about the future of the conflict - is that irrespective of Putin......the Russian establishment more broadly cares deeply about Ukraine when they think of Russia's security architecture. It is as the US Ambassador to Russia said - the "brightest of red lines" for the Russian establishment.....Putin could die tomorrow and he is very very likely to be replaced by a leader with similar or even greater desire to dominant and control Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia for security reasons.

 

Its a point I made earlier in this thread and one that will become very very important as we lap the two year anniversary of the invasion with support already being questioned in Western capitals........and that is the question of staying power, perseverance & strategic importance.......and I'm more convinced than ever that Russia's perseverance around Ukrainian neutrality vis a vis NATO is effectively infinite given its strategic importance to them.

 

Infinite in the same way that the Taliban's perseverance to retake control of Afghanistan was - in the short run military might matters most..... the US controlled Afghanistan for 20yrs......in the long run perseverance matters most (the Taliban retook control in a matter of days once the US hightailed it out of there)......if we assume Russia and Ukraine's perseverance is equal as both are equally concerned with their security/survival.....then its a question of military might......Ukraine absent exogenous support, over time, is in trouble for this reason and will likely end up compromising on almost all fronts (EU/NATO/Oblasts).....the question now in my mind is the level of Ukrainian compromise required to bring things to a sustainable peace that will allow Ukraine to re-build and when is the optimal time to do that.

Edited November 27, 2023 by changegonnacome

[cubsfan]

26 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The most important lesson of these internals comms make for anyone looking at the situation and thinking about the future of the conflict - is that irrespective of Putin......the Russian establishment more broadly cares deeply about Ukraine when they think of Russia's security architecture. It is as the US Ambassador to Russia said - the "brightest of red lines" for the Russian establishment.....Putin could die tomorrow and he is very very likely to be replaced by a leader with similar or even greater desire to dominant and control Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia for security reasons.

 

Its a point I made earlier in this thread and one that will become very very important as we lap the two year anniversary of the invasion with support already being questioned in Western capitals........and that is the question of staying power, perseverance & strategic importance.......and I'm more convinced than ever that Russia's perseverance around Ukrainian neutrality vis a vis NATO is effectively infinite given its strategic importance to them.

 

Infinite in the same way that the Taliban's perseverance to retake control of Afghanistan was - in the short run military might matters most..... the US controlled Afghanistan for 20yrs......in the long run perseverance matters most (the Taliban retook control in a matter of days once the US hightailed it out of there)......if we assume Russia and Ukraine's perseverance is equal as both are equally concerned with their security/survival.....then its a question of military might......Ukraine absent exogenous support, over time, is in trouble for this reason and will likely end up compromising on almost all fronts (EU/NATO/Oblasts).....the question now in my mind is the level of Ukrainian compromise required to bring things to a sustainable peace that will allow Ukraine to re-build and when is the optimal time to do that.

I won’t disagree at all. It’s looking more & more like a stalemate war of attrition. I hear lots of talk from Europe, but not too much action. But it’s been a hellavu high price for Russia- and I think they’re done taking European territory.

[Viking]

20 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

I won’t disagree at all. It’s looking more & more like a stalemate war of attrition. I hear lots of talk from Europe, but not too much action. But it’s been a hellavu high price for Russia- and I think they’re done taking European territory.

“hellavu high price for Russia” I agree. Ukraine has been a catastrophe for Russia. Perhaps we learn in 50 years that Putin was a double agent - really working for the West. He single-handedly: 

1.) brought NATO back from the dead

2.) convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO

3.) convinced every European country on Russia’s border to re-arm itself to the teeth

4.) destroyed Russia’s economy - likely for generations - lowering the standard of living for all its people

5.) convinced hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to flee the country (to avoid getting conscripted).

6.) killed/injured hundreds of thousands of Russian men - with 5.) creating a demographic time bomb that will go off in about 20 years.

7.) accelerated Russia’s decline as an empire.

8.) has made the country prostrate itself to China (from an economic perspective). 

I could go on. Hard to put lipstick on this pig…

Edited November 27, 2023 by Viking

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

The most important lesson of these internals comms make for anyone looking at the situation and thinking about the future of the conflict - is that irrespective of Putin......the Russian establishment more broadly cares deeply about Ukraine when they think of Russia's security architecture. It is as the US Ambassador to Russia said - the "brightest of red lines" for the Russian establishment.....Putin could die tomorrow and he is very very likely to be replaced by a leader with similar or even greater desire to dominant and control Ukraine/Belarus/Georgia for security reasons.

 

Its a point I made earlier in this thread and one that will become very very important as we lap the two year anniversary of the invasion with support already being questioned in Western capitals........and that is the question of staying power, perseverance & strategic importance.......and I'm more convinced than ever that Russia's perseverance around Ukrainian neutrality vis a vis NATO is effectively infinite given its strategic importance to them.

 

Infinite in the same way that the Taliban's perseverance to retake control of Afghanistan was - in the short run military might matters most..... the US controlled Afghanistan for 20yrs......in the long run perseverance matters most (the Taliban retook control in a matter of days once the US hightailed it out of there)......if we assume Russia and Ukraine's perseverance is equal as both are equally concerned with their security/survival.....then its a question of military might......Ukraine absent exogenous support, over time, is in trouble for this reason and will likely end up compromising on almost all fronts (EU/NATO/Oblasts).....the question now in my mind is the level of Ukrainian compromise required to bring things to a sustainable peace that will allow Ukraine to re-build and when is the optimal time to do that.

it’s funny that Putin okayed Ukraine joining NATO early in his tenure. At the time rebuilding the USSR was way down the list compared to cementing his control over Russia. It’s only after he was more secure in his power that Ukraine became “existential” to Russian “security”, ie rebuilding the Russian empire.

 

There is no way Ukraine could ever negotiate any peace deal with Russia until it’s ejected from their territory. No promise from Putin can ever be trusted, any cease-fire or peace will just be used to restart FSB corruption of Ukrainian politicians and institutions, while rebuilding the Russian military for another final assault.

 

People who think Ukraine is in trouble should read their WW1 history. France took far more casualties in less time from a smaller population but kept at it for five years until the Germans were expelled. I’ve said it since the beginning is a 3-5 year war. We have contributed to lengthening it by being so slow to supply key weapons. Our military storage overflows with retired Abrams, Bradleys and F-16s we will never use that could have been supplied in large volumes well over a year ago. Instead we dribble out handfuls of weapons, just enough to keep Ukraine from being overwhelmed,  ever enough to win.

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, Viking said:

7.) accelerated Russia’s decline as an empire.

8.) has made the country prostrate itself to China (from an economic perspective). 

I could go on. Hard to put lipstick on this pig…

 

All very true - the only problem of course - is that this is all micro stuff..Russia is in the big picture inconsquential as economic and military power (excepting nuclear).....what your describing are small victories & glancing blows in a secondary theatre of war in Eastern Europe with a country of little consequence with minimal threat to the long term security of the United States....the macro or big picture game of chess the only one that matters is the competition/containment game between the United States and China. Everything else is literally a sideshow excpet where it feeds into this competition. 

 

The problem is what I consider to be a US foreign policy gaff in the Ukraine-Russia theatre which has resulted in something that is not strategically optimal position for the United States....which is to have Russia & China as closely aligned as they now find themselves economically & militarily post the Ukrainian invasion. In effect the war in Ukraine has driven the Russian's into the arms of the Chinese when the opposite should have been our goal. Attempting to create a democratic utopia in a corrupt country like Ukraine is like playing video games when you should be studying for your finals.

 

Grandmaster level chess for the United States five years ago would have been to figure out how to drive a wedge through Russia-China relations.....or at least ensure a level of economic interdependance between Russia & the West....the fact that Russia with the world largest nuclear arsenal is now a concubine or client state of China with the world's third largest nuclear arsenal is a terrible outcome for the worlds second largest nuclear power the United States. 

 

It should also not be lost on those keeping score in this new emergent Cold War 3- that one of China's great strategic weaknesses is its lack of domestic energy resources. Well unfortunately it seems that we've handed them the resource rich nation of Russia as a client state. It is now their gas and oil station to play with.

 

Strategically isolating China, taking potential allies and making them our allies or at the least neutral parties is the real game here. Ukraine in or out of NATO was, if everybody is being honest, inconsequential to long run US security & even European security (there's a reason Merkel & Holland so roundly rejected Ukraine accession post-Bucharest...it wasnt additive)- in this light it was a somewhat pointless exercise in the liberal democratic nation building disease that affects many in the beltway......the cost for this disease is usually trillions of dollars and US casualties (Afghanistan/Iraq etc)....the real cost here isn't trillions of dollars....its much worse IMO......we've created a rock solid alliance between China & Russia which seems almost immutable now and please dont pretend this was inevitable the evidence is clear Russia post the USSR's collapse spent the last decades desperately trying to have its own strategic autonomy away from China by diversifying its energy exports to you guessed it Europe....its is not an optimal outcome either for Russia to be so dependent on China but this is where we and they are.

 

Its neither a victory for them but dont mistake it for a victory for 'us'. It isnt.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

it’s funny that Putin okayed Ukraine joining NATO early in his tenure. At the time rebuilding the USSR was way down the list compared to cementing his control over Russia. It’s only after he was more secure in his power that Ukraine became “existential” to Russian “security”, ie rebuilding the Russian empire.

 

There is no way Ukraine could ever negotiate any peace deal with Russia until it’s ejected from their territory. No promise from Putin can ever be trusted, any cease-fire or peace will just be used to restart FSB corruption of Ukrainian politicians and institutions, while rebuilding the Russian military for another final assault.

 

People who think Ukraine is in trouble should read their WW1 history. France took far more casualties in less time from a smaller population but kept at it for five years until the Germans were expelled. I’ve said it since the beginning is a 3-5 year war. We have contributed to lengthening it by being so slow to supply key weapons. Our military storage overflows with retired Abrams, Bradleys and F-16s we will never use that could have been supplied in large volumes well over a year ago. Instead we dribble out handfuls of weapons, just enough to keep Ukraine from being overwhelmed,  ever enough to win.

A lot of this depends on how you define “territory “. If it means Ukraine reclaiming Crimea & Donbas - odds are slim Ukraine can ever pull that off . They just don’t have the manpower. When it comes to ejecting Russia from their own territory- how often has that happened? Those areas are effectively Russia now.

 

The spring and summer offensive look like failures to me. Just being honest here. This looks like Stalingrad - and Russia can absorb way more punishment than Ukraine can, unfortunately. In a war of attrition, Russia has the advantage- I hate to say it. 
 

I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

[John Hjorth]

15 hours ago, cubsfan said:

... I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

 

Personally, I think you got this just exactly plain wrong, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

I think it must be clear for every European citizen by now that if you reach out for a hand shake with this person, you can't rely on what you agree with him about.

 

It's about the interactions between concepts of naivity, to believe in the best of every person, trustworthiness and its opposite, the concepts af consistency, reliability  and integrity, thereby also the concept of "Your word", "Your promise" or "Your pledge".

 

The man does not qualify in any of these aspects or dimensions.

 

So : No deals. -Period.

Edited November 28, 2023 by John Hjorth

[ValueArb]

15 hours ago, cubsfan said:

A lot of this depends on how you define “territory “. If it means Ukraine reclaiming Crimea & Donbas - odds are slim Ukraine can ever pull that off . They just don’t have the manpower. When it comes to ejecting Russia from their own territory- how often has that happened? Those areas are effectively Russia now.

 

The spring and summer offensive look like failures to me. Just being honest here. This looks like Stalingrad - and Russia can absorb way more punishment than Ukraine can, unfortunately. In a war of attrition, Russia has the advantage- I hate to say it. 
 

I don’t see that Europe wants to be involved - so if Ukraine can push Russia to the pre-2020 borders - that may be the victory Ukraine gets.

 

By end of 1916 the French had taken nearly 4 million casualties with around 900,000 dead from a total population of only 39M. The germans had tried to turn it into a war of attrition by attacking Verdun which they knew the French would never surrender, hoping to "bleed the french white".  The allies counterattack at the Somme failed miserably. The Russian front had collapsed in 2015, Brusilov's brilliant surprise offensive in 2016 bogged down, and the Romanian entry on the Allied side was quickly crushed, doing little to rebuild hopes that Germany would have to divert more troops to the east.

 

We keep seeing things through the mirror of the recent past. A country unified in a fight for its very freedom is a powerful thing, and the citizenry is willing to tolerate a huge amount of sacrifice for a long period. I don't see Ukrainians ready to compromise for at least a couple more years.

 

Europe doesn't want Russia on Poland's border, or to have access to all of Ukraines resources. It just spells bigger problems in the future. I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. And I have hopes that we will finally get off the pot and start providing full support from our massive supply of retired armor and air assets from storage as the administration stops trying to walk a tight rope between helping and not enraging Putin,  realizing that the status quo is just grinding down the Ukrainians and leading to a longer and more disastrous war.

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

Personally, I think you got this just exactly plain wrong, Mike [ @cubsfan ],

 

I think it must be clear for every European citizen by now that if you reach out for a hand shake with this person, you can't rely on what you agree with him about.

 

It's about the interactions between concepts of naivity, to believe in the best of every person, trustworthiness and its opposite, the concepts af consistency, reliability  and integrity, thereby also the concept of "Your word", "Your promise" or "Your pledge".

 

The man does not qualify in any of these aspects or dimensions.

 

So : No deals. -Period.

John - regardless of words on paper - I just think you’re looking at a stalemate, whereby ejecting Russia from The Donbas & Crimea is close to impossible. I wish it were not so, but what happens when Ukraine depletes their manpower and the Europeans need to step in??  I don’t think it will happen.

 

We will see.

[cubsfan]

21 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

 

By end of 1916 the French had taken nearly 4 million casualties with around 900,000 dead from a total population of only 39M. The germans had tried to turn it into a war of attrition by attacking Verdun which they knew the French would never surrender, hoping to "bleed the french white".  The allies counterattack at the Somme failed miserably. The Russian front had collapsed in 2015, Brusilov's brilliant surprise offensive in 2016 bogged down, and the Romanian entry on the Allied side was quickly crushed, doing little to rebuild hopes that Germany would have to divert more troops to the east.

 

We keep seeing things through the mirror of the recent past. A country unified in a fight for its very freedom is a powerful thing, and the citizenry is willing to tolerate a huge amount of sacrifice for a long period. I don't see Ukrainians ready to compromise for at least a couple more years.

 

Europe doesn't want Russia on Poland's border, or to have access to all of Ukraines resources. It just spells bigger problems in the future. I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. And I have hopes that we will finally get off the pot and start providing full support from our massive supply of retired armor and air assets from storage as the administration stops trying to walk a tight rope between helping and not enraging Putin,  realizing that the status quo is just grinding down the Ukrainians and leading to a longer and more disastrous war.

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

Edited November 28, 2023 by cubsfan

[John Hjorth]

16 minutes ago, ValueArb said:

... I have confidence that the EU and Great Britain won't flag in their support of the Ukraine. 

 

What do mean with this, @ValueArb ? I'm not sure I understand it [, correctly] ?

[John Hjorth]

On 11/25/2023 at 2:03 AM, Xerxes said:

 

 

@Xerxes, Hugh?!

[shhughes1116]

12 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

So are you saying that the Ukrainians are capable of removing Russia from The Donbas and Crimea??? You think they will push back the Russians to the pre-2014 borders??

 

I think the answer to this question lies in the next election.  if Nicki Haley wins, then Ukraine wins by force or by Putin suing for peace.  if Biden wins, then I think Ukraine gets a slow drip of weapons to keep the status quo.  And if Trump wins, the range of possibilities is endless.     

 

The Biden Administration has slow-walked numerous armaments that would enable Ukraine to easily eject Russia beyond the pre-2014 borders.  Examples include over 1,000 ATACMS (past their expiration date, "unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions, and costing the taxpayer to decommission when instead it would be free to ram it down Russian's throats), 100 of thousands of DPCIM 155s remaining in US inventories domestically and abroad ("unusable" due to our BS policy on cluster munitions), 1000's of Bradley's and HMMVS that are being scrapped, 1000's of Abrams that are sitting around to either be scrapped or sent back to the plant for the next version of the Abrams tank, 100's of M1A1 Abrams that were recently given up by the USMC, and there is plenty more.  We have over 200 Assault Breachers - based on the M1 chassis - literally the best mine-clearing engineering vehicle in the world - and we didn't give them any before they attacked the Surovkin line in the South.  The whole reason these exist is for a ground war with a near-pear adversary.  All of this equipment withheld or slow-walked because some spineless Administration members are worried about escalation, or because they make the false claim that this stuff is needed in case of war with China (it is not needed for a war with China). 

 

And I am tired of hearing the BS about how the US can't release high-tech gear, or that we can't possibly weaken active duty units.  We have a precedent - Nixon - of stripping active duty combat aircraft from front-line units and handing them over to Israel, along with other arms and munitions. 

 

If the US wanted Ukraine to win, all of this stuff would be in Ukraine now and Ukraine would be stomping all over Russia.  The war would probably be over by now.